[UEP, Failed] Nazgul Attacks against the Balrog.

[Bandobras Took]

That's reasonable enough.

Any other opinions, or should I edit the UEP per Wacho's Proposal?

[Leon]

I think the suggestion that Wacho has is about as much as I and Adrian mentioned before. Please edit the UEP, then I will agree with it. It will make the rules more in line with the way you'd play instinctively, without actually making the nazgul a whole lot more dangerous for the balrog groups.

[Bandobras Took]

Okay, I've updated the UEP.

If you've already voted no or yes and want to change your mind now, post it here or forever hold your peace.

[Jambo]

Ben, you could just re-do the vote?

[Bandobras Took]

Ben, you could just re-do the vote?

Er . . . I could?  Do I edit my original post?

Actually, that's why I asked if it changed anybody's vote.  It seems a lot of people wanted to make sure all the pieces were in order before committing to anything, so if the votes won't change, there's little point in resetting it.

[Sly Southerner]

I'm confused.  8O  :?:  8O

[Bandobras Took]

I'm confused.  8O  :?:  8O

I changed the original UEP to be what Wacho suggested and am wondering if anybody who has already voted desires to change their vote now that I've modified the UEP.

Jambo said I should reset the vote.

I don't know how to do that.  I didn't know I could.   But I don't think I should unless somebody who's already voted wants to change their vote.

Is that less confusing, or are you confused about something else entirely?

[Sly Southerner]

Is that less confusing, or are you confused about something else entirely?

I guess not being a Balrog player I dont really understand what the issue here is in the first place or how this would affect balance and consistency.  :?

It might help if you would quote the Balrog site cards which are relevant to the discussion. Probably very obvious to many, but not to me.  8O

[Wacho]

Carn Dum, Minas Morgul, Dol Guldur.  I think that's it.

[Bandobras Took]

Not being a Balrog player myself, I'm not sure how it affects them balance wise.  The inconsistency, though, is that a Nazgul creature keyed to one of the aforementioned sites is non-detainment (per the site card text), but the Nazgul auto attack associated with the site (1 at 15, cannot be cancelled) is detainment.

[Leon]

I have only played a couple of games as Balrog, but the change is certainly not too harsh. As a Balrog you do not really visit those sites unless you want to attack your opponent, since they are dangerous and there is not that much to play. It seems only natural that the nazgul want to fight you of in such case. Come to think of it you cant even attack a minion in his haven so I would not know why you would visit these sites.

[|Highwayman|]

I don't see the point here
if you really want you can read the MELE detainment section that even the nazgul auto-attacks should be detainment, but on the other hand - MEBA showed up in 1998, so about 9 years ago and yet I've never heard of anyone who'd play that the nazgul auto-attacks on balrog-sites are detainment...

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Personally I don't think it's strange if Nazgul attack normally at their lairs, but only ask questions to orcs/trolls when roaming the country. When knocking at the gate, you have to reveal your true intentions, passing on the road you're just another bunch of uglies.

So the issue imho is more about the inconsistency with auto-attacks, not with all nazgul attacks per se.
Then there is another issue, because the UEP now mentions 'the balrog's company' in stead of 'balrog companies.' You mean this to be only about companies with the Hogg himself present?

On a thematic note, I personally find it hard to believe that Sauron would openly attack a rival evil spirit with whom he served under Morgoth. Orcs attacking one another is something else, they are not directly under His will and are very Prone to Violence, but Sauron sending his nazgul against a Balrog? Could be of course, if he's walking into Barad-dur....

So, I'm inclined to say no. It's best if all nazgul attacks are detainment, except those at the sites the Balrog has special versions of. I'm with highwayman also, I can't imagine someone would hold that the nazgul attack at those sites is detainment, when the card specifically states that creatures attack normally. This includes nazgul creatures, other than at e.g. Goblin Gate, which further prooves the point that Sauron would not send Nazgul to attack a Balrog there (though of course this site is before the MEBA expansion).

This all for thematic reasons, but also I think moving Balrog companies have a hard time already, they get smashed often enough once they show their face out in the open, they don't need Nazguls on wings attacking them. That's why so many Balrog decks consist of pussies who stay at home, move only once, or stay under.  

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Hmm, I did misread the first part of the UEP, so you mean only the Hogg's company can be attacked by nagzul at places/regions other than the mentioned sites. That makes more  sense than 'any Balrog company', indeed.
Still, imagine Bill Ferny tapping at Bree because he doesn't like your Hogg is coming to attack your opponents hobbits...of course tapping Bill to let some elves attack you is equally strange   , but at least not as strange as Nazgul attacking a Balrog at a borderhold...Sauron must be really in fierce competition then for the title of His Royal Nastyness of Middle Earth.  :lol:

[Bandobras Took]

As far as the game goes, since there is no option for the Balrog to bring the One Ring back to Barad-Dur, I can easily picture Sauron deciding the Balrog must be eliminated as a potential threat.